Author: Peter Conrad
Publisher: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Continuing the work of pioneers in medicalization such as Irving Zola and Ivan Illich, this veteran
but intermittent author on medicalization gives us a sociologist’s perspective
on medicalization. Conrad provides us with examples, but also gives us some
causes (such as direct-to-consumer advertising, managed care, changing
definitions and ‘domain expansion’) and consequences of medicalization.
Conrad illustrates the volume of literature on medicalization by showing the results of an internet search from 2005. I repeated that search in 2012. He found 71,700 hits on Google; I found 541,000. He found 445 articles in Medline I found 689. I guess this means that recognition of the problem is not going away.
Medicalization covers a broad range of conditions, some of
which are legitimate conditions for which some people derive benefit from
medical treatment, but the diagnostic and treatment thresholds have been
altered so that treatment is provided to those who may not benefit, and may be
harmed. Take the case of anti-depressants for adolescents for example; it was
an extension of their use in adults but there was no benefit, and there was
real harm. In other examples, the presence of a disease process is unlikely, such as social anxieties, menopause and short stature. Conrad repeatedly points out that he is not so concerned about the presence
of ‘real’ disease; he is more concerned with the social aspects of the
“expansion of medical jurisdiction”.
Conrad gives us a fairly comprehensive background to
medicalization, including causes, and he rightly points out that it is not just
the doctors that are causing the problem. But the background section and the
middle section of the book (which provides all the examples) is only of
interest to those not familiar with the topic already (and the familiar examples,
such as ageing, baldness, erectile dysfunction, menopause and ADHD).
The final section looks again at causes, and adds social
consequences. It is a heavy read, and fairly dry, but there is plenty to think
about in this section, and abundant references throughout for those wanting
more.
I agree with Conrad's fear that “transforming all difference into pathology diminishes our tolerance for
and appreciation of the diversity of human life”. And another line I like
is:
One can only wonder if hypochondria is still a viable classification, given the huge increase in
available medical diagnoses for individual troubles.
I don’t want to be too critical of a senior author that has
helped raise the understanding of an important topic, but medicalization does
more than lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, diminish our tolerance of
outliers, and blur the concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘disease’; it harms us.
Medicalization does the opposite of what medicine is supposed to do. The social
aspects of medicalization are important, but the simple concept of the balance
between benefit and harm for many current medical treatments needs to be
calculated and reported. This is more likely to correct the current problems
than a discussion of the social implications.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.